I believe in you OP! Getting all A's and boosting your GPA sounds like a good plan, and I'm sure you'll crush the LSAT. I mean, with that high of a diagnostic and a prep course over the summer, you're pretty much guaranteed a 175+. Don't let the haters stop you from doing your thing!

NativeGuy14 wrote: your job as a responder to MY thread that I posted is to answer the questions that I asked. (You had one job, dude)

pretty sure when I signed up it wasn't for any sort of job bastards tricked me!

Yeah, you did actually. You signed up to either 1) Post a forum for people to give feedback to or 2) Give feedback on other's forum. That would be your "job" or "purpose" as a member of this discussion board. I can see why that doesn't make sense to you, since it's obvious you are here to troll. But that's why there is a report button for "off-topic" responses. *bloop*

I do believe giving feedback and answering questions are a little different. If you refer to my edit, you may notice there could potentially be reasons behind indirect answers/questions to gain more info for a better response

So, I'm going to try to resist all urges to be snarky and give you a legit answer.

Law schools care most about the bottom line - LSAT and GPA. The improving trend of your grades will be helpful, but won't overcome the fact that you're looking at a 3.25 in the best case scenario. Of course you should also write an addendum explaining how your undiagnosed ADHD explains the initial difficulties and how you've done so much better since getting treatment. That will help as well, but you'll really need that 170-175 LSAT score to give yourself a real shot at most of the top schools. Apply broadly - a 175 would be well above the 75th percentile of all but the top couple of schools (think HYS). Some schools will be hungry for a high LSAT score and may overlook your low GPA depending on what their particular needs are for the class.

Also, it's worth noting that your undergrad GPA is not necessarily the same as your LSAC adjusted GPA, which is what law schools look at, so it's possible that it won't be a 3.25 even if you get all As.

All that said, nobody here can tell you for sure what your odds are without both those numbers (LSAT and GPA) being set in stone. And even then, it's tough to know exactly what a school will be looking for, but I'd have to assume (based on my personal opinion and no empirical support) that a 3.25 175 URM would have a good shot at some of the top schools given the right circumstances.

PoopNpants wrote:speaking from experience, I took an extra 20 credits to try to bump my UGPA up and I planned on getting straight A's but ended up getting basically a 3.5 so the effect it had on my gpa wasn't nearly as impactful as I hoped. Assuming your gonna get straight A's is almost as asinine on assuming your going to get a 170 LSAT, which only 2.8% of takers achieve.

You comparing our situations is completely asinine. The fact you were unable to accomplish your goal of obtaining a significantly higher GPA and you don't have faith in your ability to achieve a 170 on the LSAT has no bearing on my abilities or my faith in my abilities. You made several assumptions 1)I'm only taking an extra 20 credits 2) I will only get a 3.5 average in those classes 3) I'm not in the top 2.8% of LSAT test takers. I'm not going to assume you didn't make a 170 on the LSAT. However, if you did not make a 170 I am going to take a wild guess and say it was probably because you're willing to make an argument based off unfounded assumptions.

An unfound assumption would be really be the guy who has a 2.75 GPA (a C+ average) getting a LSAT score achieved by 2.8% of test takers while simultaneous getting no less than an A in his remaining UGPA career. I mean you'd prolly have a good shot if you could manage to collect the dragon balls and use some wishes on that buddy\

Nativebro, don't take offense when posters try to gauge the feasibility of you achieving your optimal GPA/LSAT combo. It might have made sense for you to dismiss comments like the one Rigo made if you had only posted what you had in the OP (although the sperglord tantrum still wouldnt have been necessary). But after you asked this question,

NativeGuy14 wrote:But do I have one more question - I am debating two options: 1) Obtain my Paralegal Studies certificate this summer, graduate in Spring 2016 w/ approx. 3.0 GPA, work for a year and then apply for law school w/ a great reference from a lawyer I have worked for, or 2) Graduate in Spring 2017 w/ approx. a 3.25 GPA and just have educational/community service references. Which one sounds more effective? Either way, I don't plan on starting law school until Fall 017.

, bringing into question the odds of you actually getting a 3.25/170+ is totally warranted since it is a major part of the calculus that goes into choosing which of those options to pursue.

But yeah, if you actually do get a 3.25/170+, you might have a good shot a UCLA and maybe even a couple of higher ranked schools.

Also, I'm a wolf in your #pack who is currently a good way through an admissions cycle. Feel free to PM if you have any questions.

No, I wouldn't have to pay for it. And if I stayed another year, I would be able to get a second degree in Political Science, not just a minor.

A .25 GPA increase is pretty significant but you'd still be under the 25th% at most schools worth attending. It's hard to advise you on anything since you don't have an LSAT so we don't know what caliber of an applicant you will be. Unless you really want to stay in school for reasons other than GPA rise, graduating and making money and gaining real world experience may very well be more important. Maybe you'll realize law isn't for you, for instance, as a lot of paralegals/legal assistants do.

Also, it's a big assumption that you'll be able to pull straight A's and be able to significantly raise your GPA. It could very likely be less than a .25 rise.

I realize that a 3.0 or 3.25 GPA is under the 25th percentile at most top schools. (Thank you, nonetheless, Captain Obvious.) That is precisely why I asked if they will consider the fact that my grades have improved significantly during my last two years. I'm not asking you whether it is possible for me to get straight A's and significantly increase my GPA or whether I am able to score 170+ on the LSAT. And why do I need a to have an official LSAT score? You are not an admissions officer; I do not need to prove my "caliber" to you. I simply posted a thread asking IF I am able to accomplish these things, will I be considered at a top school. Your job as a responder to the thread that I posted isn't to question my ability to achieve a 3.25 GPA or an LSAT score over 170 - your job as a responder to MY thread that I posted is to answer the questions that I asked. (You had one job, dude)

"It's hard to advise you on anything." So may I ask you a question? What was your point in replying to this thread? You answered none of my questions. In fact, your response to my initial question was....a question. You wasted both of our time. Gosh, I'd love to see your LSAT score. Usually I wouldn't even respond to such idiocy, but I'm hoping to serve the greater good and convince you in the future not to waste other people's time. (HINT: You shouldn't respond to this)